By 6:00 a.m. EST Wednesday, more than 675,000 digital signatures appeared on 69 separate secession petitions covering all 50 states, according to a Daily Caller analysis of requests lodged with the White House’s “We the People” online petition system.

Fourteen states are represented by at least two competing petitions. The extra efforts from two states — Missouri and South Carolina — would add enough petitions to warrant reviews by the Obama administration if they were combined into petitions launched earlier.

As the Daily Caller notes, liberals have launched their own counter-petitions:

In a … nose-thumbing aimed at Texas’ conservative majority, progressives from the liberal state capital of Austin responded Monday with a petition to secede from their state if Texas as a whole should decide to leave the Union.

Late Tuesday a second group of Texans, this one from Houston, lodged their own White House petition. Secession-minded Texans, they wrote, “are mentally deficient and [we] do not want them representing us. We would like more education in our state to eradicate their disease.”

***

A group from El Paso, too, wants no part of an independent Texas. “Allow the city of El Paso to secede from the state of Texas,” their petition reads. “El Paso is tired of being a second class city within Texas.”

The petitions are little more than symbolic—and nothing new. Similar petitions were filed after the 2004 and 2008 elections.

Libertarian website Lew Rockwell argues in a piece by Ryan McMaken that nothing will come of the current secession attempts, but that the principle is important:

I have no illusions about this latest secession petition phenomenon. Nothing will directly come of this, and the people who are behind it are mostly people who would be singing “God Bless America” at the tops of their lungs had Mitt Romney been elected. On the other hand, it sure has a lot of people talking about secession, which shows that the idea of it remains an important part of the American political consciousness.

When the government fails to secure those rights, we can ditch it and start our own government.

That’s pretty much all it says. If you thought that was true in 1776, when tax rates were 1% and there was no such thing as a the EPA or the FBI or the IRS, why is it not true now? Because we’re so much more free now? And, no, the Declaration did not say that the government is free to violate rights as long as people get to vote on it.

The Declaration establishes that there’s no such thing as treason, and a free government requires the assumption of just secession. Lysander Spooner explains[:]

Thus the whole Revolution [of 1775–1783] turned upon, asserted, and, in theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he had lived. And this principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a universal right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.

Ron Paul says that states have the right so secede … and predicts they will do so when the dollar collapses:

Comment viewing options

I'm supposed to believe that Texas will be allowed to leave the Union and take its oil with her?

I'm not that bright, but I traveled halfway around the world to Kick someone's ass for claiming some oil in Kuwait.I watched as we murdered Khadaffi.

And you think you're going to walk away from this here union with oil?

If seceding becomes serious, the good citizens of Texas will be given five days to get the hell out of the state.

The bad citizens will be exterminated. This is not 1860, where if we find a few cannons, some horses and a musket and bayonet, we consider ourselves in the game.

One night the Hercules AC-130 plane - nicknamed the ‘Angel of Death was flying above us in Fallujah. I can promise that whoever takes on this mighty land and attempts to take oilfields, will be sorry their parents were ever born.

You could have saved yourself some time and just said "Hi, Im a statist dumbass who hates the very thought of self-determination and have no problem fighting anyone in the name of central government uber alles."

Don't see many people going anywhere, besides its more fun to sit and watch as the all powerful central government you love so much and depend on to survive takes what you have and grinds you and yours into the dust.

This is just a powerful delusion to trick the good people of the USA. There are no good or bad citizens, just deluded citizens on both sides set upon each other. That is the game plan for a take down of the USA.

1.Humans have rights from the Creator.
2.Governments exist to secure those rights (a debatable assertion but we’ll roll with it).
3.When the government fails to secure those rights, we can ditch it and start our own government.
_______________________________

And the corrollary:

If you are not acknowledged those rights, nothing is wrong. That is simply because you are a non human or a sub human.

It means the Arab Spring has arrived in the US. CIA provocateurs et al are hard at work stirring up the shit to baffle and confuse the local inhabitants in each state. This is a Thermidorean reaction that will not solve anything. Same playbook, different century.

I'm not surprised Ron Paul launched this call to arms for the Constitution.

A few years ago, while conducting research for a novel I was writing about Lone Star politics,
I discovered a short clause in the state's 1845 annexation agreement that's well known to any serious state historian, though far less well known to the average Texan. Buried beneath some highly boring details about how the republic's resources were to be transferred to the federal government in Washington is language stipulating that "[n]ew States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution."

Put plainly, Texas agreed to join the union in 1845 on the condition that it be allowed to split itself into as many as five separate states whenever it wanted to, and contingent only on the approval of its own state legislature. For more than 150 years, this right to divide—unilaterally, which is to say without the approval of the U.S. Congress—has been packed away in the state's legislative attic, like a forgotten family heirloom that only gets dusted off every now and then by some politician who has mistaken it for a beautiful beacon of hope.
In 1930, a few years before he muscled his way into the White House as Franklin Roosevelt's first vice president, House Minority Leader John Nance Garner led a crusade to divide the one state he represented into five, along regional lines. Together with their progenitor, the new states of North Texas, South Texas, East Texas and West Texas would, in Garner's words, "transfer the balance of political power from New England to the South and secure for the Southern States ... prestige and recognition." At a time when Texas was solidly Democratic, the threat of eight new Democratic senators in Washington would also, in his view, have the added benefit of chipping away significantly at the Republican majority's power.
Garner's plan died on the vine, as have all other attempts since then to split the state (including the one in 1969 proposed by state senator and San Antonio gambling kingpin V.E. "Red" Berry, who dreamed of creating within Texas a 51st state that would be a paradise of parimutuel betting). Still, despite these notable failures, the division clause remains on the books. Its legality has been discounted by some and defended by others, but the issue has never been put to rest in any authoritative, legally binding way. (Snopes.com is uncharacteristically wishy-washy on the matter; newly minted liberal demi-god Nate Silver, hardly the gullible sort, seems far more credulous.) Until that day comes, dreamers and dissidents will continue to view it as a sneaky way to ensure Texas' political supremacy in this era of the closely divided Senate and the opportunistically wielded filibuster.
Could the current crop of Texas secessionists use the division clause in pursuit of their separatist goals? It would certainly be worth a shot. Naturally, it took the Machiavellian political mind of Texan Tom DeLay—the former House majority leader, currently out on bail while appealing a 2011 money-laundering conviction—to put the pieces of a tenable scheme together. The day after Perry blew his secessionist dog whistle to that reporter back in 2009, DeLay went on MSNBC's Hardball to cheerfully defend his governor's remarks. When host Chris Matthews insisted (correctly) that unilateral secession was illegal and couldn't take place, DeLay stopped his maniacal grinning for a moment and cited the division clause.
In a sign of just how much the two political parties' fortunes have shifted in Texas since the days when John Nance Garner represented the state in Congress, DeLay intimated that the threat of sending eight newly minted, and almost certainly Republican, senators to Washington might be the key to getting this whole secession ball rolling. Referring directly to the language of the joint resolution, he said, "If we invoke it, the United States Senate would kick us out ... because they're not going to allow 10 (sic) new Texas senators into the Senate. That's how you secede."

Is it a nutty idea? Sure. An un-American idea? Definitely. But for yesterday's flag-waving patriots, a sizable number of whom have suddenly found themselves transformed into America-bashing cynics, it must seem like an idea whose time has finally, if sadly, come.

Oh so 25k signatures represent the rest of the state population? Maybe they should really think about the consequences of that. Basically this is a bunch of bible thumping crybaby republicans who are upset the spent billions and lost the opportunity to control the printing press for there own agenda. I don't see how this would benefit anyone. You'll just end up with a bunch of little hitlers and will be even worse off than you are now imo. Not to mention a huge planetary destabilization. Then again it might be easier for the likes of IMF etc to manage the globe with no superpowers. I just see no positive outcome here.

The comments I'm reading here are unbelievable. Never would I have thought this site would be so full of little cunts. Of course secession is possible and could be done bloodlessly. All it takes is for people to be the passive aggressive bitches they are naturally. Take money out of the banks, not file federal tax returns, and recall Texan military. The us military is not about to support Obama and start killing texans, and if they did, it would be a pr fiasco, and secessionist would emerge everywhere.
The benefits for residents of resource rich Texas, would far outweigh any benefits of staying in the union. That is, for people not on the dole. Seems high time to kick those monkeys into self reliance mode anyway, if you ask me.

One thing is sure, texans are very good at producing fine examples of 'americanism' just like this drug addict, Lance "where is the syringe?" Armstrong.

'Americans' should deserve a nobel prize for 'americanism' Since they took over the reins of the world, 'americans' have been in all kinds of troubles producing suitable candidates for the peace nobel.

Make a nobel prize for 'americanism' and you have more than your share of top elite candidates.

That 'american' who hid behind cancer to indulge in his addiction still had not it and keeps parading as if he won something else than the most addicted award.

The caucasin race has always had a racist attitude ever since the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth, and even before that event. Racism is still the root of what motivates the actions of many people. Combine racism with a willful persuit of ignorance and here we are. Love it or leave it Tea Party.

That is a funny one. 'American' economics is all about consumption and 'americans' love to increase activity in order to increase consumption.

25,000 signatures, the right to secede or not, all this non sense will only provide more consumption opportunities for 'americans' so they perform their 'american' duty of consumption.

25,000 signatures is peanuts and a wild assurance that consumption opportunities will be given for lawyers, political experts, US american citizen bloggers, all the usual leeches that 'americans' call productive members of an 'american' society.

Without the strong detterrent of jail as it is imposed by the US government, you could start same petitions about restarting slavery for negroes, deporting all 'illegal' immigrants (that is the Indians (north and south type), the negroes, the asians etc) and get the same success.
Only the fear of prison will prevent those 'american' opportunities.

Now back to the 'american' reality: 'americans', it is either with them or against them. Every 'american' know that if their state secedes, they will leave the eye of the storm of 'americanism' to expose to the storm.

There is no better protection from the bad sides of 'americanism' than the mecca of 'americanism', namely the US of America.

Leave them and this time, it wont be no longer about killing US citizenship holders but non US citizenship holders.

Any 'american' know that and any 'american' popular vote will give a resounding "no".

But it will provide jobs, work and consumption opportunities for 'americans' so lets roll.

After all, depletion of resources is one 'american' ultimate goal and every bit more of consumption is still welcome.

This is what happens when a country is run by looters. The fracturing of the country started a long time ago, we are now just starting to see how deep they have become. A country divided will not stand. God help us.

All of this could be solved by just following federalism and the 10th amendment. Just do things mentioned in the Constitution at the federal level and leave everything else up to the states. Trying to keep 50 separate states happy filled with varying perspectives is impossible.

Lincoln burned that bridge long ago. Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, and all the recent presidents made sure that it has never been rebuilt. They are the protectors of the financial parasites that run this once fair land.

The pledge includes 'And to the Republic for which it stands'. The Republic is effectively dead. I relinguish the pledge.

I've given this some thought and the question is where could you go? I am assuming that there will be a global financial crisis so where would be a safe place to choose. I had my eye on Andorra but its situated between France and Spain two countries that will deff have big problems and have spillover to surrounding areas. Lichtenstein would also have the spillover prob. Central and South America I fear would be too ripe for a Dictorial transformation when shit hits the fan. SO where does that leave?

What Does It Mean that Residents in All 50 States Have Filed Petitions to Secede?

It means that many people talk a good game but do not believe their own talk. If they truly believed that human beings have liberty, they would realize that they have the power to secede right now should they desire. I am in the process of seceding from the United States, by living as an ex-patriot, and I do not have any great sum of wealth. All it takes is a little savings (as little as $15,000 can support someone in many countries for several years), a will to do it, and the same faith in the creator that prompted millions to forsake everything to come to the United States.

The logical move, at some point, is to renounce U.S. citizenship because of the onerous tax burdens and the difficulties one faces contending with the financial institutions in other natiosn as an American. I have not reached this point yet, as I am starting up a company and have little income to tax. Also, I need to receive citizenship in my other country first. It seems likely, however, that unless U.S. law and imperial delusions change, at some point, I will have to renounce my U.S. citizenship.

It means that we are nearing the tipping point, beyond which there is no return as we descend into WWIII hell. By many accounts this process has already begun with the syrian conflict, even more so now with gaza. The ENDGAME race is now on to the finish line, with TPTB wagging the dog. Keep your eyes on Greece and Spain, realizing full well we are next. Feinstein just submitted her gun control bill to the house, so theyll be coming for your guns shortly which is the canary in the coalmine. Next stop: civil unrest enacting MSHEPA and related executive orders activating FEMA camps, urban center lockdowns, highway checkpoints, forced vaccinations, and all the rest of that crap theyve been enacting through legislation without our knowledge or congressional approval for decades. Market collapse aka "economageddon" will likely be first, then some kind of nuclear falseflag on US soil blamed on Iran or Pakistan, then Isreal will lead the Iran attack pitting NATO against BRICS where billions will perish. Amidst all this the "zombie apocalypse" virus will be unleashed to take care of the remaining goyim that the war and civil chaos didnt eliminate. Bibi666 is on a mission, and hes not listening to anyone trying to stop him. Time is short. Stock up on Jack Daniels, shamwows and SOAP bitchez.

Brixton Guns-Feistein will never get any gun bills heard in the current congress and she knows that. She is just trying to appease her liberal voter base. Maybe she might have a chance after the 2014 midterms assuming the democrats were lucky enough to steal enough votes to gain control of the house and maintain control of the senate. I would be less worried about this and more worried about Obama doing some type of gun control executive order such as mandating micro stamping serial numbers on ammo or something similar that would make it costly to purchase ammo. As far as the UN gun control treaty yes Obama could sign a treaty but no way it would ever get ratified by 2/3 vote. We got bigger things to worry about now then worrying about losing our guns.

I agree with Ron Paul on this, that when the dollar collapses, the secessions will happen. I don't think they will happen now. In general, most people dislike change, and so on their first hearing of possible secessions, the majority will end up voting against it. But hearing it now is preparing them for what is to come. The more times people hear things, the more comfortable they get with the ideas.

Remember, any state that seceded would have to be able to defend itself militarily and that's just one example of many of complications that would be difficult to surmount.

It doesn't bother me that Texans and others want to secede, in fact I kinda like the idea, but I seriously doubt these governors will want this logistical nightmare. Seriously, think about all the possible ramifications, Ryan McMaken is right, sadly nothing will come of it.